WTF, is it global warming, cooling, or pausing now? I can't keep track.

Citizen Runner wrote:... for a guy ignorant on the topic of parameter estimation of chaotic systems, James Annan has managed to sneak a remarkable amount of material on the topic through peer review.

the shill wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:... for a guy ignorant on the topic of parameter estimation of chaotic systems, James Annan has managed to sneak a remarkable amount of material on the topic through peer review.

Cite a couple of good illustrative examples? By "the topic" here I mean, using your words, "parameter estimation of chaotic systems." Thanks in advance

Maybe I don't understand what your asking, but his publications are not hard to find:

The IPCC does not have a convincing explanation for:warming from 1910-1940cooling from 1940-1975hiatus from 1998 to present* * "present" in this case is 2104 when this article was written.These are the conclusions of Judith Curry, Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.If you're on the fence about climate change, this article is a very good exposé of the IPCC playing fast and loose with their certainty about warming being causing by man. First, here is an excerpt for those who won't read the article.

And here is the entire article. It builds a strong case for uncertainty about climate change.

I was reviewing a paper last week and the authors cited a textbook as specific reference for a particular concept. I commented to the authors much the same way I'll respond to you: I'm not going to hunt through this authors body of work to find evidence that proves your point, that burden is on you. If as you say this guy is well published in the area of chaotic natural phonomena, surely there must be a good example you think worthy of pointing out?

It's common knowledge that political orientation correlates with one's view of climate science to a high degree. Likewise it has been suggested that mitigation skeptics tend to view science through the lens of policy implications. With this in mind, it's interesting that your response to "how good does the science have to be to influence policy" is simply a reference to the policy question answers.

3a) The position here seems to be "minimize current cost of energy without regard to externalized future cost". Selfish perhaps, but if that's a fair interpretation points for honesty. As stated it isn't clear how this guides long term capital investment. For example, should routine power grid upgrades, which will be in service for decades, be designed in anticipation of a transition to more intermittent even if there is additional current cost involved?

3b) An issue with mitigation strategies is that the impacts of climate change are not proportionally distributed according to the benefits of fossil fuel use. Given that you don't seem to be a fan of the Paris Accord, it's not clear that your suggestion addresses the global aspect of the problem. Also, dikes don't do much for the potential collapse of natural ecosystems.

3c) Whether a policy has a chance of working, depends upon what one defines as working. If one accepts that carbon emissions are a negative externality of fossil fuel use, Pigovian taxes are broadly accepted as an effective means of internalizing those costs.

Not being able to address the attribution of change in the early 20th century to my mind precludes any highly confident attribution of change in the late 20th century.

An issue with precise attribution as one goes back in time is that observations are less reliable. The issue with early 20th century isn't that there aren't plausible paths, the problem is that there is not definitive data to make high confidence attribution. The best guess for early 20th century warming attribution is a combination of a period of high volcanic aerosols depressing temperatures in the early part of the century, increased solar activity, and a temperature record that is corrupted by a significant in sensors during the WW2 period. Regardless, it doesn't necessarily preclude attribution for the latter half of the century when observations were better and rate of greenhouse gas growth was higher.

The Judith Curry article you link is one of her more surreal posts. She parses the IPCC attribution statement in a way that is clearly in conflict with the various figures in the report and persists to this day, even when that has been pointed out repeatedly. Note that the point is that she seems unable to grasp the meaning of the statement in context regardless of whether the statement is correct. This is something anyone with a high school statistics background should be able to get.

There is an extended comment on that post here:

Citizen Runner wrote:... for a guy ignorant on the topic of parameter estimation of chaotic systems, James Annan has managed to sneak a remarkable amount of material on the topic through peer review.

the shill wrote:

I'm not going to hunt through this authors body of work to find evidence that proves your point, that burden is on you.

My claim was "a large body of work", hence a list is appropriate response if the list is largely representative. You've said that climate is chaotic and we can probably agree that the point of climate modeling is to parameterize climate to some resolution. Since nearly all of Annan's work is in this field, my point is demonstrated.

On the topic of your general argument, although not a technically rigorous the 2014 opinion article "Can we trust climate models?" might be of interest to you. It both acknowledges your argument re annual to decadal uncertainty, as I understand it, and argues for the utility of climate models in long term projection.

Thank you for a reasoned response.

Citizen Runner wrote:

It's common knowledge that political orientation correlates with one's view of climate science to a high degree. Likewise it has been suggested that mitigation skeptics tend to view science through the lens of policy implications. With this in mind, it's interesting that your response to "how good does the science have to be to influence policy" is simply a reference to the policy question answers.

Allow me to ask specifically address this point. As a futurist, I do not believe that it is possible to forecast a complex system 100 years into the future with a sufficient degree of certainty to warrant aggressive present day action on that forecast.

First, uncertainties within the variables of the forecast create uncertainty in the forecasting. Variables that are discounted today might prove to have more influence that believed.

Second, Black Swan events can dramatically change how the future unfolds. Although rare, the potential for Black Swan events increases over longer time frames.

Third, future technological breakthroughs could make our concern over climate change moot. Granted, this may seem unlikely today, but 50 years ago who would have believed that we could carry a device in our pockets that could access almost the entire body of knowledge of mankind, while allowing us to communicate instantly with others almost anywhere in the world.

Given these uncertainties, the best approach would not be to restrict CO2. Restricting CO2 is backwards thinking. Emerging civilizations need more energy and they are going to get it from whatever is the least expensive.

Right now, that's coal, wood, oil, and natural gas. We need to find more efficient, sustainable, and inexpensive sources of energy and make those technologies inexpensively available to the entire world. This approach would benefit mankind regardless of whether climate change occurs. Building alternative energy power today (wind and solar) with today's technology is backwards thinking. We need better technology first. I believe that today's wind and solar farms will be obsolete in less than 20 years.

Citizen Runner wrote:(1) You've said that climate is chaotic and (2) we can probably agree that the point of climate modeling is to parameterize climate to some resolution. (3) Since nearly all of Annan's work is in this field, my point is demonstrated.

(1) Indeed I have. And in this sense, the primary references on my bookshelf I look to to help me understand chaotic systems are:

Pietgen, Jurgens and Saupe, Chaos and Fractals, 2nd Edition, Springer, 2004

Sornette, Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences, Springer, 2006

Schroeder, Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws, 1991

(2) I'll admit to being a little unclear on the point of climate modelling (I'm not trying to be facetious), but grant you that its intent it to somehow characterize expected future climate.

(3) I think there's a logical fallacy in there I can't put my finger on... Are you saying that since all his work is in trying to describe future climate, ergo he has published widely on chaotic phenomena? I think that's only true if we are taking as a given that climate is chaotic. I take that as a given, but I understood that to be our main point of departure so I'm not sure how you rely on that to make your point...? Surely I've misread or misunderstood, but in any event, my opinion remains unaltered; on the basis of his words in that blog post, he does not really understand chaotic natural phenomena. Or why the idea of chaos really renders any predictive model more or less useless.

Since the Climate crisis threatens a wide range of constituencies (the developing world, the natural world, coastal communities, agriculture, as well as all future life to come) do your "beliefs" carry any moral relevance? No they don't. What matters in a crisis are facts. It's a scientific fact that carbon dioxide molecules are selectively transparent. In other words, they are completely unaffected as the sun's energy passes thru them in route to the surface of the Earth. Once our Earth absorbs that energy, it re-emits it in the form of long wavelength infra-red radiation. It's long wavelength infra-red radiation that agitates CO2, causing its molecules to vibrate and produce more heat. This is the basic greenhouse effect that has been scientifically understood since 1824, with the studies of Joseph Fourier. It explains how the interior of a parked car can become scorching hot while its windshield stays cool. Is there something in your "futurist" belief that anticipates a change in the behavior of CO2 molecules in response to infra-red radiation? Do you think the basic physics of our atmosphere will change? Based on simple chemistry, isn't it apparent that more CO2 into the system will produce more heat? Given that the Geological Record verifies that exactly, with the Late Permian Mass Extinction, the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum? In fact, here is what's happening now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/02/10/its-about-50-degrees-warmer-than-normal-near-the-north-pole/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_cwg-northpole-5pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ea5b87c03d43

The speculative technological breakthroughs you cite are exactly what George W. Bush used 15 years ago to justify his withdrawal from the Kyoto Climate Accord, to justify doing nothing. Betting the kids and the farm on a "could be" technological fix--on Hydrogen fusion or whatever-- is a form of epic hubris that curdles into nihilism. Humanity relies on three basic staple foods: corn, wheat, and rice. Agriculture depends on a stable predictable climate. The failure of any one these staple crops would produce massive misery & upheaval on a global scale, which is why the Pentagon has been clear in its Quadrennial Defense Review about the threat Global Warming presents.

Citizen Runner wrote:3) Should society be doing anything different as a precautionary measure until we gain sufficient understanding per question 1 on the off chance that the greenhouse gas effect as proposed in 1824 is broadly correct?

I'll try to answer this one, in my own indirect way.

First, I think the question of whether society "should" do something is largely irrelevant, being hypothetical and in any event unanswerable. And anyone's individual views on the question impose a judgement on the rest of society that one is not entitled to impose on them.

I do think scientists interested in the topic ought to study it if it floats their boat, as I am for the most part in favour of scientific exploration and in any event enjoy intellectual stimulation. And society as a whole tends to benefit from the accumulation of new scientific understanding, although often in ways we wouldn't have expected in advance.

I'm hesitant to generalize that we ought to do "something" different without knowing what "something" we are discussing. Casually it's east to say we ought to do thinks differently when society's perspectives on the cost-risk-benefit balance suggest we ought, or ought not, do a thing differently.

I think the more important questions are "can" we or "will" we do something really different. Here I expect that society across the globe will never truly see, in a clear way, that the cost-risk-benefit balance is compelling reason to do something substantially different.

Instead I expect we will have activist groups and some countries nibble around the edges of the perceived problem, and the majority of the world will watch and wait, and then adapt as needed.

I'm not convinced that waiting and adapting is wrong. At the same time, I see real value in controlling emissions and limiting other environmental damage for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with climate.

Our "main point of departure" not to be whether climate is chaotic. Clearly it is. Our difference is whether it is predictable within bounds.

It's this that I think is a lot less binary than you seem to be arguing.

The commonly discussed Global temperature anomaly metric is a statistic in the physical Earth. Thus to model global temperature anomaly in a model Earth, the model needs to be statistically representative, determinism is not required. The perturbations to the system induced by greenhouse gas changes are small compared to the daily day vs night as well as seasonal changes due to orbital mechanics. They are of a similar order to glacial cycles, so we are not entirely without means to validate model behavior.

There is, of course, the possibility that something of great significance is missed in the models, but uncertainty cuts both ways. One can't argue that consequences might be less than expected due to uncertainty without recognizing that consequences may be greater than expected. Uncertainty is not our friend and is a better argument to proceed cautiously than the reverse.

Citizen Runner wrote:(1) Our "main point of departure" not to be whether climate is chaotic. Clearly it is. Our difference is whether it is predictable within bounds.

(2) Uncertainty is not our friend and is a better argument to proceed cautiously than the reverse.

(1) I will bring up the plot later but we are outside (below) the lower bound of projected temperature anomaly from early IPCC reports.

(2) I guess that's one way to go through life, always erring on the side of caution. Like Eeyore... or Ghost of Igloi in the Dow thread. Glass half empty... I'm more of a glass half full kinda guy and have some considerable faith in humanity to solve challenges when they become real. I don't make this statement casually by the way.

the shill wrote:

(1) I will bring up the plot later but we are outside (below) the lower bound of projected temperature anomaly from early IPCC reports.

(2) I guess that's one way to go through life, always erring on the side of caution. Like Eeyore... or Ghost of Igloi in the Dow thread. Glass half empty... I'm more of a glass half full kinda guy and have some considerable faith in humanity to solve challenges when they become real. I don't make this statement casually by the way.

1) Before you do so, consider this paper which addresses some of the pitfalls in model / observation comparision:

2) Practically speaking, how would one distinguish the described philosophy from "kicking the can down the road", that is, optimizing present value and letting someone else clean up whatever mess we've made? Recognizing that neither global economies or planetary climate systems change course slowly, when should humanity begin addressing this sort of thing?

You've used the word again... "should"

This almost certainly reflects different ways of viewing the world. I find little interest or value in "should" questions. Maybe someone else will weigh in.

Sorry my contributions, for whatever they are ever worth, are especially quick this weekend I will try to be more engaging later in the week. More on chaos and utility of models...

Citizen Runner, thanks for linking to the Curry rebuttal. I'll read it soon.

DiscoGary wrote:

With that kind of chaos going on there's no reason to be in a hurry to act. Let's give it another 40 years and see what it looks like then.

This is priceless..."let's leave it alone for a while until it's actually a problem and it's too late to do anything substantive about it."

From someone who is so against government deficit spending (a different but similar form of kicking the can down the road and f*cking over future generations), this is rich.

FitzyXC wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

With that kind of chaos going on there's no reason to be in a hurry to act. Let's give it another 40 years and see what it looks like then.

This is priceless..."let's leave it alone for a while until it's actually a problem and it's too late to do anything substantive about it."

From someone who is so against government deficit spending (a different but similar form of kicking the can down the road and f*cking over future generations), this is rich.

Very priceless considering that libs use the opposite argument to allow refugees from lawless/terrorists countries. Allow them in because according to the current stats they are harmless.

ItsBaddude wrote:

Very priceless considering that libs use the opposite argument to allow refugees from lawless/terrorists countries. Allow them in because according to the current stats they are harmless.

There is no solid evidence that letting in Random Vetted Syrian Guy (and contrary to your news sources there is/has been a thorough vetting process, though obviously not perfect as perfection is pretty much impossible here) will lead to a terror attack. There is pretty solid evidence that continuously pumping sh*t into the atmosphere might do some damage. Likewise with spending money you don't have.